Are atheists morally unaccountable?

[Jason Harris 31]

This is in response to someone' s signature on this site that said, "Atheism means never having to be morally accountable for anything you do."

No, atheism means one doesn't believe in God. Or put another way, some believe that God created Man in His image, while atheists believe that Man created God in his image.

I vaguely understand the leap of logic, because religions teach Right and Wrong, or at least their versions of such. However, since many atheists are also taught Right and Wrong, the inference seems to be that being taught Right and Wrong is not enough to make one morally accountable. (By the way, look up the word moral and you will discover no reference to religion, God or theism.) Thus, if being taught Right and Wrong are not enough, then the supposition is religious believers would be morally accountable because they understand there is an Ultimate Penalty to acting immoral.

The problem with this is one of the most infamously evil men in history, Hitler, killed millions of people in the name of religion (in his case, Christianity). In theory, Hitler faced the same level of Ultimate Penalty that other believers have/had, yet he passionately believed he was acting for the Almighty Creator to the same extent that Mother Teresa believed she was.

So, what's the point of all this? Am I to hold all Christians accountable for the Holocaust or slavery? Am I to hold all Muslims accountable for 9/11? Am I to hold all atheists accountable for Mao? Of course not. There are beliefs and non-beliefs, neither of which impacts what 99% of humans would agree is Right and Wrong.

[Datsyukiandeek 0]

Im a full blown atheist.. morals are overrated. I like the Stalin, Mao and Hitler arguments though. ****Shhh*** don't mention the catholic church, Islam as a whole and the vast amount of other deaths in the name of "God". Godless heathens such as myself will be burning forever :lol:

[Chadd 916]

Ok, I'll just ignore that bit of prattle from Datsyukiandeek and address the original topic.

There's a great section in Hitchens new book that addresses this point pretty directly, including an amusing anecdote around page 185. The sad part is that I can't do justice to it in a post short enough to be read here. Suffice it to say, simply because one does not believe in a supreme being does not mean that one does not have a personal code or ethical standard. Atheist does not equal anarchist, quite to the surprise of some people.

[LkptTiger 1]

I assume this thread was started in response to this signature:

Atheism means never having to be morally accountable for anything you do.

As an atheist, I can tell you that I do live according to my own moral standards - which, to be honest, aren't that far from my mother's, who is a devout Christian...the difference being I make my own calls, while my mother lives life the way she is being told.

Personally, my moral "code", if you will, is as simple as the fundamental difference between "right" and "wrong" - with, I admit, a few exceptions. Throughout the early parts of my life (I'm still young), I have learned what is good for myself and what is good for those around me. I have also learned, largely through observing others, that self-destructive behavior will have a negative effect on most everyone around me - namely the people I care for.

While I do "call my own shots," I hold myself accountable for my actions. I do engage in actions which are considered by the church as "lustful" and "gluttonous" and "vain" - and for that I don't apologize. But, at the same time, I know that if I wish to become a happy, successful, functional, respected adult, I can't stray too far from that "straight and narrow" path down which my mom is traveling.

*Edit*: Salming added the quote.

[kosydar 0]

I think the reason people would assume atheists don't have morals is because there is no written standard. Christians have the Bible, Muslims have the Qu'ran, etc. Unless I've missed something drastic there is no written, universal standard for atheists on how to live a moral life. Because there is so much ambiguity in it, outsiders will often marginalize atheists by saying they have no morals simply because there is no where for someone to point out when an atheist screws up. I went to Catholic high school and I've been a part of many debates between both ends of the religious spectrum and a common tactic I've noticed from atheists is pointing out how an individual is a "bad" Christian because they are a sinner, or disobey the Ten Commandments. Not saying that all atheists do that, but its been a one-sided attack I've seen countless items. Bringing up the "you don't even have morals" seems to be an overused comeback to that.

Interesting stuff with Hitler. I've actually read a lot of Mein Kampf and have learned about him in a few different classes, and I've yet to learn about him being Christian. I guess I must have overlooked the subtleties when reading it.

[Vapor 0]

Mr Dawkins said it best...

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion"

[usahockey22 0]

Morally unaccountable? Sounds like the definition of what it means to be a priest in the catholic church these days... <_<

As for atheists...well...all the people I know who, at the very least, question religion and God (rather than blindly following what is found in the bible or Sunday's Sermon), seem to have a much better grasp on reality, and are capable of greater independent thought. Even children, after some time, begin to suspect that Santa isn't real.

[ag12 0]

The Bible only mentions the word "religion" twice. The word of God has been used and abused through human history and continues to this day, which is why people like Dawkins make those statements. I highly disagree with his book (I have not read it, but have seen excerpts), but I can see his point. The Bible references people like himself and it was written a couple thousand years ago. Human nature is the same as it was a couple of thousand years ago, it will never change. Dawkins is clearly a very bright man, but is also subject to his own folly. He's trying to fight/debunk something that is far greater than he even understands. Someday his voice will be quieted and then his debate will be over, never to be heard again and then someone else will pick up his work and give it try until their short life is over. He doesn't even want to debate people who believe contrary to what he says, sounds very fishy....

[prenny207 1]

this is a very tough topic to keep on track, and i compliment those that have posted thus far. very mature responses (in most cases).

i myself am an atheist as well, and that has been a personal decision. i have been to many church's, and my parents took me to church for a brief time during my childhood. i was able to make my own decisions on what i felt was right for me... and this decision is where the "problem for others" lie. my grandmother was a devout catholic, and would preach to me that i need to be baptised, and that i will never be able to marry. i have always taken the approach that it is really to each their own. i was always happy for my grandparents that they found peace and happiness in the church, but why must i. if i am happy and lead a good life, why much i have faith to make it better. im happy for u, just dont preach religion to me. which brings the next situation.

i will start this by saying that in the USA we are given the freedom of religion, yet in most cases, that is only acceptable if you are religious. those that are not, are looked down upon by those who are. go figure.

a lifelong friend of mine, though raised catholic, found her choice of religion (baptist) in her late teens, early 20's. she has recently told me that i need to find god, and my life is not whole without faith. so i in turn look at her relationship (which has since turned to marriage) with a guy that she has dated for years now. he has cheated on her multiple times, has a child out of wedlock with another woman, treats her poorly, and is basically a bad "christian". yet, somehow he is a better person then i because he goes to her church and every sunday he gets right and washes away all his sins. now i ask you, i have known her for 25 years, and have always been a respectful friend with strong morals, but am i not a good person like he is, because i dont go to church. (and believe me or not, i have never cheated on a girlfriend)

yes in many cases religion is good for people, but i believe there are too many people that choose religion because they feel they have to, not because they want to. and i close with the fact that i feel children are not given a choice when raised in religious households, and should they decide when they do get old enough, if they choose a different path then how they were raised, they are now a bad person.

just my opinions!

[forbs02 20]

I think the reason people would assume atheists don't have morals is because there is no written standard. Christians have the Bible, Muslims have the Qu'ran, etc. Unless I've missed something drastic there is no written, universal standard for atheists on how to live a moral life. Because there is so much ambiguity in it, outsiders will often marginalize atheists by saying they have no morals simply because there is no where for someone to point out when an atheist screws up. I went to Catholic high school and I've been a part of many debates between both ends of the religious spectrum and a common tactic I've noticed from atheists is pointing out how an individual is a "bad" Christian because they are a sinner, or disobey the Ten Commandments. Not saying that all atheists do that, but its been a one-sided attack I've seen countless items. Bringing up the "you don't even have morals" seems to be an overused comeback to that.

Interesting stuff with Hitler. I've actually read a lot of Mein Kampf and have learned about him in a few different classes, and I've yet to learn about him being Christian. I guess I must have overlooked the subtleties when reading it.

There are two books about Hitler that you should read if you'd like to really get into his psyche. The Hidden Hitler, which explores the possibility of Hitler being homosexual. The other one, which I read in college and really enjoyed is Adolph Hitler: The Psycopathic God. It takes a look at Hitler from a Freudian point of view.

Both have some takes on his religious backgrounds. The Third Reich has been likened to a bastardized version of Christianity. There is lots of similar symbolism and rituals. There is a ton of info about that out there.

[rollerskater92 0]

i am sure atheists make their own moral standards based on what is socially accepted

[lawryde 0]

I'm a Deist.

It gives you the ability to believe in a Supreme Being without all the hang-ups and BS associated with organized religion.

[Chadd 916]

I'm a Deist.

It gives you the ability to believe in a Supreme Being without all the hang-ups and BS associated with organized religion.

It also provides some answer to why/how we exist at all, without the cute stories.

[godiogo 0]

Is anyone here a member of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

It's popular among some of my atheist/deist friends.

[number21 3]

As an agnostic, i think we need to lighten this discussion up a little. (this is a really interesting thread though)

Bender meets god

[tbintexas 0]

check out Sam Harris if you want some interesting reading. He has a book called 'The End of Faith', and a shorter one, written later, called 'Letter to a Christian Nation'.

Good reads...

http://www.samharris.org/

[Guy Incognito 0]

Interesting how judgmental some of you are about what others believe. To essentially call religious participants "idiots" for subscribing in what they choose to believe is a bit ironic, considering you will be judged at some point and want to defend yourself and your stance. You are a minority, which is fine, and you cry for freedom to be accepted for your non-belief. However, you don't want to allow others to make the same decision you want the right to make- since of course it is different than yours and you are all-knowing and call my God, "Santa." Sounds a bit more fanatic to me than what you're leading others to believe, including those "Bible Bangers" whom you judge as well.

[Chadd 916]

Interesting how judgmental some of you are about what others believe. To essentially call religious participants "idiots" for subscribing in what they choose to believe is a bit ironic, considering you will be judged at some point and want to defend yourself and your stance. You are a minority, which is fine, and you cry for freedom to be accepted for your non-belief. However, you don't want to allow others to make the same decision you want the right to make- since of course it is different than yours and you are all-knowing and call my God, "Santa." Sounds a bit more fanatic to me than what you're leading others to believe, including those "Bible Bangers" whom you judge as well.

I don't think anyone here has said that belief should be banned or been derisive about the beliefs of others. We could get into that but it would probably take this topic in a direction that isn't beneficial for anyone and I'd like to keep this as friendly as we possibly can.

[ag12 0]

I find the Richard Dawkins forward interesting about the Sam Harris book in which he states " . . . if one of us is right, the other is wrong . . . in the fullness of time, one side is really going to win this argument, and the other is really going to lose." So as I understand it he's saying if you believe in science or something similar to explain our existence then we may be right eventually.... Or if you believe in the existence of a higher power you maybe right if the judgment comes and then we are wrong and have a major problem. That's sounds like some risk to take, I'll stick to what I believe. These guys have their theories because they have too much pride and use human reasoning which ultimately fails every time. If either of these guys can explain where each and every one of us gets our first breath from then I'll consider what they say, but they'll never figure that one out....

[Guy Incognito 0]

Im a full blown atheist.. morals are overrated. I like the Stalin, Mao and Hitler arguments though. ****Shhh*** don't mention the catholic church, Islam as a whole and the vast amount of other deaths in the name of "God". Godless heathens such as myself will be burning forever :lol:

Mr Dawkins said it best...

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion"

Morally unaccountable? Sounds like the definition of what it means to be a priest in the catholic church these days... <_<

As for atheists...well...all the people I know who, at the very least, question religion and God (rather than blindly following what is found in the bible or Sunday's Sermon), seem to have a much better grasp on reality, and are capable of greater independent thought. Even children, after some time, begin to suspect that Santa isn't real.

I'm a Deist.

It gives you the ability to believe in a Supreme Being without all the hang-ups and BS associated with organized religion.

It also provides some answer to why/how we exist at all, without the cute stories.

I beg to differ, Chadd. An intelligent discussion would be welcomed in light of judgmental bias.

[Chadd 916]

Most of the comments are not shots at people who believe. Part of having a debate means not taking things personally and not being uber-sensitive.

Datsyuk's comments should be ignored, just like anything he has said here.

Vapor's comment is a a quote, and a humorous one at that.

I'll agree that those two don't contribute anything to the discussion.

usahockey has a very good point. The catholic church was unethical and immoral in covering up the acts of several priests. Given the actions of church leaders and "moral authorities" in countless cases, it's easy to see why so many people feel as he does. Unless you know the same people that he does, it's hard to justify that his comments about the people he knows being inaccurate. He's not saying that your god is santa, he's comparing belief in a deity to belief in santa.

Lawryde's comment is pretty mild as most people will concede that any problems with religion and belief are caused by man. The vast majority of what I was taught in catholic schools has nothing to do with the word of god, it is the interpretations of those who follow. God has never started a war, but millions have been killed in his name by his followers.

As for my comment, it may have been a bit flip but I stand by it. Deism does not require you to believe the parables and the subsequent interpretations. It provides a vehicle to explain how existence came to be without an accompanying dogma.

[Kovy_Ribs_Fedo 3]

I don't believe in any religion the way they are but I believe there might be something beyond everything that can't be explained.

No one will force me to act in a certain way, I know by myself what is good and bad for me...

[Chadd 916]

I don't believe in any religion the way they are but I believe there might be something beyond everything that can't be explained.

No one will force me to act in a certain way, I know by myself what is good and bad for me...

Reminds me of this quote:

I never resist temptation, because I have found that things that are bad for me do not tempt me.

George Bernard Shaw

[Guy Incognito 0]

I think, and hope, you know better than that, Chadd.

Morally unaccountable? Sounds like the definition of what it means to be a priest in the catholic church these days... <_<

As for atheists...well...all the people I know who, at the very least, question religion and God (rather than blindly following what is found in the bible or Sunday's Sermon), seem to have a much better grasp on reality, and are capable of greater independent thought. Even children, after some time, begin to suspect that Santa isn't real.

The bolded sentence insinuates that adults who believe in religion are more naive than children who believe in Santa. Naivity has nothing to do with a constructive discussion. That is an opinion. Positive arguments are objective, not pot-shots at the "opponent."

I'm a Deist.

It gives you the ability to believe in a Supreme Being without all the hang-ups and BS associated with organized religion.

This says my religion is bullshit.

It also provides some answer to why/how we exist at all, without the cute stories.

Again, an attempt to mock my religion without any substantial fact or objective proponence. Simply because someone compliments your intelligence with a stated (again, subjective) opinion does not mean that they are not insulting someone else. An open-minded approach does not discredit every point set forth by a partner in discussion or slap your comrades on the back for believing the same.

[Allsmokenopancake 0]

Im a full blown atheist.. morals are overrated. I like the Stalin, Mao and Hitler arguments though. ****Shhh*** don't mention the catholic church, Islam as a whole and the vast amount of other deaths in the name of "God". Godless heathens such as myself will be burning forever :lol:

Mr Dawkins said it best...

"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called religion"

Morally unaccountable? Sounds like the definition of what it means to be a priest in the catholic church these days... <_<

As for atheists...well...all the people I know who, at the very least, question religion and God (rather than blindly following what is found in the bible or Sunday's Sermon), seem to have a much better grasp on reality, and are capable of greater independent thought. Even children, after some time, begin to suspect that Santa isn't real.

I'm a Deist.

It gives you the ability to believe in a Supreme Being without all the hang-ups and BS associated with organized religion.

It also provides some answer to why/how we exist at all, without the cute stories.

I beg to differ, Chadd. An intelligent discussion would be welcomed in light of judgmental bias.

Those are all comments on religion as a whole.

With the exception possibly of the catholic priest bit, the rest are generalizations of organized religion, and not specifically railing against one.

We had the whole priest scandal in Ireland before it hit big over here, and I am still pissed at the priests, and bishops and cardinals. They took priests who abused boys, "forgave" them as is the way of the church, put them in other towns, when it happened again, they were "forgiven" and put to pasture in another town.

There are (and particularly at the time, in the late 80's back home) many small towns, who were torn apart by this, with some of the hardliners siding with the church, and casting the abused kids as the kind of kids who would lead priests on.

Go through them one by one, the first comment, are you disputing that religion has been a force or factor in almost all wars since as far back as it has been around?

The second one, replace delusion with belief without proof, thats what religion is.

The third, thats the priest one I addressed

The fourth, are you saying that there is no BS in organized religion, it usually comes from the fanatical side, but thats also usually the side the casual observer gets to see.

1. Catholics knowing priests molested children and still never reported them, or stopped them

2. Muslims declaring a Jihad on the west, justifying murder of many for a skewed belief

3. Evangelists like pat robertson and jerry falwell preaching to congregations of millions that a town in PA that doesn't teach creationism in science class better watch out, because god will destroy them, or that god let 9/11 happen because of americas tolerant ways, or that Katrina happened to wash the city of its moral corruption?

4. Pentecostal minister Al Sharpton saying that Mitt Romney wouldn't get elected because "real" christians would take care of that

5. Free Presbyterian Ian Paisley shouting to the holy father Pope John Paul II in the European Parliment "I denounce you as the Antichrist"

There is a hell of a lot of BS in organized religion, just as there is a hell of a lot of BS in athiests beliefs too.

And chadds reference about the cute stories, Adam & Eve, would you define that as a true and accurate portrayal of the beginning of life?

I grew up in a strict Irish Catholic household, we had to do mass every day in november for all souls in the morning and the novena for 14 days at night, mass every day of may for the blessed virgin mary, mass for lent, all the other holidays we were jesused to the max. My mother is still hardcore about it, and more power to her.

But the majority of mudslinging has not been AT religion until recently, and even then, it's still fairly even, you just side with religion so feel like you have to defend it, and thats fine.

I have no quarrel with anyone believing what they will, but don't say that religion is being innocently persecuted, because for the past couple of thousand years, it's been a one way street with the persecution.